A question about the accuracy of dating the Earth and fossils.....

by EndofMysteries 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EndofMysteries

  I have done some research into radiometric and carbon dating but I have been unable to find an answer or explanation to my challenge on that. I wonder if anybody here can point me in the right direction or possibly answer it.

  The first is that it seems most if not all of these dating methods rely on measuring decay. Unless I am mistaken, decay is not equal everywhere. If I leave meat outside will it decay at the same rate as if it's frozen? Or if there is no air and oxygen available?

  I went to the catacombs in France and saw many bones that were practically dust, after only 200 years, there is no way they will last millions of years. It seems there are so many variables that will accelerrate or slow decay that it would be far too unreliable as a means of dating the age of something.

  That is the first part of the question, the 2nd part is this.....

  Try to take this concept and apply it on a grander scale. Rocks are made of minerals, elements, etc, and so are we. If copper that I ate becomes a part of my body, does that change the age of the copper or do I become as old as that copper is?

  It's also claimed the oldest rock/elements found on the Earth are 4.5 billion years old, so that is how old the Earth is. Does that mean that out of thin air the Earth appeared? What if those rocks and elements were floating in space from 4.5 billion years ago yet they clustered and gathered and formed the Earth only 1 billion or 1 million years ago? Is there more to the dating techique that specifies when they became part of the Earth?

  I would think these questions have already been addressed but can't find the answers.
• 

  Vidiot

  "I'll do some research and get back to you."

  Seriously, though; carbon dating isn't actually used on fossils (i.e. remains that have actually turned to rock); it's only accurate to about 50,000 years back.

  The ages of the Earth and the different eras between mass extinctions (and thusly, the ages of the fossils found in the layers of strata delineating the evidence of mass extinctions) were worked out by astronomers, geologists, and paleontologists sitting down together, crunching the numbers, and working out a chronology that best fit the evidence (decades before Darwin, I might add).

  The planets themselves and their moons were formed (by the simple gravitational attraction that occurs in all physical matter) from the debris and detritus that existed in an accretion disk of stellar matter spat out by our sun when it was just a young whippersnapper and spinning on its axis a lot faster than it does now.
• 

  jgnat

  "Unless I am mistaken, decay is not equal everywhere. If I leave meat outside will it decay at the same rate as if it's frozen? Or if there is no air and oxygen available?" - EOM

  We're not talking cellular or vegetative decay, here, but the rate that a sample loses it's carbon 14. So no, it is not affected by heat, cold, oxygen, or moisture.

  The decay rate of carbon 14 is on a predictable scale, which makes it a great choice for measuring the age of things (within the tolerances).

  

  See how smooth the line is? You don't see that in the decay of vegetative, organic things.

  http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae403.cfm
• 

  EndofMysteries

  jgnats answer on carbon dating may address the first question I had.

  The 2nd part is still there though. Let's just say for arguments sake that copper was the rock dated to 4.5 billion years ago, hence the age of the Earth. If you take copper and melt it, when it solidifies is it still it's original age or is it brand new? If a meteor contains copper that is 4.5 billion years old that lands on the Earth that doesn't make the Earth 4.5 billion years old does it?

  What if the 'stellar matter' as Vidiot mentioned was 4.5 billion years old, does it change when it becomes part of the Earth?

  If this statement is true, "Matter cannot be created or destroyed, but it's form can change", what is actually being measured to date the Earth at 4.5 billion years and if the measurement is a 'change' in matter, how do they know whether that change occured before the Earth was formed or after?
• 

  jgnat

  I think you need a basic physics book. Elements are elements forever. Copper is a metal, an element, not a rock. Copper is all copper and will not have any carbon in it. The only thing that changes an element to something else is a spectacular event like a nuclear explosion, where an electron is encouraged to leave it's elemental home. We have only managed to figure out how to do that with the heaviest elements which are that way because they have so many freaking electrons it's relatively easy to convince one to leave.

  
• 

  jgnat

  More about carbon-14, what it is and where it comes from:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

  

  
• 

  cofty

  It's all answered in this document written for the purpose of helping skeptical fundamentalist christians...
• 

  cofty

  Unless I am mistaken, decay is not equal everywhere. If I leave meat outside will it decay at the same rate as if it's frozen? Or if there is no air and oxygen available?

  Radioactive decay is constant. Its nothing like meat. It has nothing to do with oxygen or bacteria.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  Okay, so things up to 50k or 60k years may be covered from your answers.

  The dating of the Earth still hasn't been addressed much. If they are dating the Earth at 4.5 billion years because of a rock or element, and the dating of meteors is the same, then whats to say that was the beginning of Earth vs the age of a meteor that struck the Earth much later on?

  jgnat - elements are elements forever? So copper was always there, it was never formed? Unless I am misunderstanding, I wonder how people can accept the concept of elements being eternal, no beginning or end, yet the concept of God having no beginning or end is impossible to understand. To me they would both be equally hard to comprehend.
• 

  cofty

  EOM - Do you really think all the scientists have made the same obvious mistake but you have noticed it? What are the odds?

  Some of your questions are similar to "what does a triangle taste of?"

  Read Wien's article it will answer all your questions...

  There are no shortcuts to knowledge, science is complex and you have to do the work.